or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit - Page 4

post #121 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Wrong. Apple doesn't offer any such "upgrade" disc that only upgrades prior versions.


No they don't offer it for sale, but it exists and it's free with a new machine if you catch it at the right time, like buying a new Mac right after a OS X upgrade release.

It's used so they don't have to disturb the packaging.

Did for me with Jaguar to Panther when I bought a new machine the night Panther was released.


It won't install the OS, just upgrade the older one.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #122 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yeah, I guess that's true - if you're not bright enough to understand the difference between an OS and a wallpaper. No matter how you dress Ubuntu up, it doesn't have the ease of use and elegance of OS X. You may not care, but many people do.


The Mac4lin theme is not a wallpaper, it almost resembles OS X in nearly everything. Sounds, fonts etc.

But it hasn't been updated in some time and it's not very polished, I agree. It makes a decent, secure and cheap net/light office OS.

So someone could get a Ubuntu Dell Mini 10 for about $300 and simply install the theme and have a OS X looking netbook, without resorting to a hackintosh. Of course one can't hook up iPod because there is no iTunes for Linux.


If one needs the XP look, there is a theme for that too. Doesn't use IE, but Firefox naturally.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #123 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

It's not different at all. Buy an HP or a Dell, and try to put their 'Windows Image' disk in another brand PC, and you'll get a message that you can't install it because it's not an HP, Dell, or whatever.

The disk that comes with a new computer is purposely designed to contain the OS, hardware drivers, bloatware, anti-virus and trial software for that particular brand and type of machine.

One can get Windows in the retail stores and install it on any PC, but have to install the hardware drivers from the OEM or the computer maker.

Also I'm sure there is a piece of software that will just image/rip Windows off a OEM disk too.

Windows will run on any x86 based Intel like processor and Apple's Mac's, with the correct drivers for the hardware.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #124 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is, of course, absurd. The entire computing industry today is based on the principle that the creator owns the product and can decide how to license it. Are you arguing that Microsoft should lose the right to restrict site licenses to the sites they are sold to? Or that it should be OK for me to buy 1,000 student licenses for Windows and sell them at full retail?


If you read my full post, you see I wasn't serious. Just playing devils advocate.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #125 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's only because you're either misinformed or not thinking straight.

Dell is the manufacturer. The computer is an Inspiron, for example.

IBM is the manufacturer (actually, not any more, now it's Lenovo). ThinkPad is the computer.

Anyone who says the bought a Dell is making a statement like "I just bought a new General Motors". It's not incorrect, but it's also extremely misleading and imprecise.


Right, I was explaining that to poster too.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #126 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

...Someone can correct me if I'm wrong I believe Mac & PC became terms out side of their original technical meaning back in the early days of the Microsoft/Apple wars. At that time the acronym PC moved from just Personal Computer to describe any MS-DOS/Windows running computer due to their massive dominance of that market and Apple's own attempts to shirk the label of PC.


Yep, Mac's and PC's were two different machines too back then. Different processors, hardware and operating systems.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

.The name Macintosh was a model just like PowerBook or MacBook but the term Mac was actually coined to give a name to the operating system that came on an Apple Macintosh computer. The name Mac actually refers to the OS running on an Apple computer & is not from the machine model name...


Long ago "Get a Apple" was Apple Computers slogan, as they had different models, the Apple IIe, the Lisa and the Macintosh and so on.

The name "Mac" wasn't just because of the OS, but because the hardware was different than the PC's. The Lisa ran the same sort of OS as a Mac did.

Today Mac's and PC's (both personal computers) are the basically the same machines in hardware. There is no drastic difference between the two, except the operating system that comes pre-installed on them.

OS X, Windows, Linux and Unix can each run on either Mac's or PC's as long as any hardware drivers needed are compatible.

Apple could start selling Mac's tomorrow with Windows (or even Linux) pre-installed if the are so inclined.


I was trying to explain is how someone who comes from a foreign country, where they are used to computers being all x86 based and installing any operating system they choose, reacts when they are told they can't do that with OS X.

Foreigners from a country where Apple has virtually no presence, residing in the United States, decides to sell OS X on generic PC's.

Psystar was incredibly ignorant and stupid to continue once issued a cease and desist letter. But the concept of owning a license for software is most likely foreign concept to them as well.

Apple is now saddled with teaching the world in order to protect it's intellectual property, I think just adding a special piece of hardware needed for OS X to run on Mac's would have been a much easier solution.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #127 of 132
So is it safe to conclude that by filing an appeal that Psystar does indeed have private financial support?
post #128 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


I was trying to explain is how someone who comes from a foreign country, where they are used to computers being all x86 based and installing any operating system they choose, reacts when they are told they can't do that with OS X.

Foreigners from a country where Apple has virtually no presence, residing in the United States, decides to sell OS X on generic PC's.

Psystar was incredibly ignorant and stupid to continue once issued a cease and desist letter. But the concept of owning a license for software is most likely foreign concept to them as well.

Apple is now saddled with teaching the world in order to protect it's intellectual property, I think just adding a special piece of hardware needed for OS X to run on Mac's would have been a much easier solution.

Really, this argument is well...not so good. You really think people from outside the US don't understand copyright and/or IP? \

Just because their laws are not the same doesn't mean they are ignorant, nor does it mean they didn't have any other architectures than x86 to run software on.

Given the fact you'd have to hack the software to get it to run, I'd say people who do that know exactly what they are doing and why they have to do it. If you think it's on Apple to "teach the world" you are severely misguided, especially since people worldwide (including the US) have been pirating software since the advent of the software license. To say they don't know what they are doing is just plain foolish.
post #129 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Yep, Mac's and PC's were two different machines too back then. Different processors, hardware and operating systems.

Long ago "Get a Apple" was Apple Computers slogan, as they had different models, the Apple IIe, the Lisa and the Macintosh and so on.

The name "Mac" wasn't just because of the OS, but because the hardware was different than the PC's. The Lisa ran the same sort of OS as a Mac did.

You're wrong with so many of your statements that it is obvious that you weren't around in the early computing days, and did no research. For example, you have said that early computers didn't have an OS, you just ran programs and they ran on any computer, but all computers had to have an operating system or they couldn't operate. Some history from Wikepedia:

The computer word boot is short for 'bootstrap' (short for 'bootstrap load'). The term bootstrap began as a metaphor derived from pull straps sewn onto the backs of leather boots with which a person could pull on their boots without outside help. In computers in the 1950s, pressing a bootstrap button caused a hardwired program to read a bootstrap program from a punched card and then execute the loaded boot program which loaded a larger system of programs from punched cards into memory, without further help from the human operator. In a computing context, that word has been used since at least 1958.

Hence the term to "boot up" the computer. Later, the hard wired program read the OS from read only memory (ROM) chips already on the mother board. When floppy disks finally became "affordable", they could extend the operating system as they weren't constrained by the cost and size limits of ROMs. The computer still had the basic OS on ROM, allowing it to start with or without an operating system on disk, but they could do more with one. Early programs were often sold with the operating system on the same disk, so it didn't seem to need one, but once programs became too big, you either had to have two floppy drives or continuously swap the system and program disks when prompted. Once hard drives were introduced, they made this dance obsolete.

Back to your above quoted point, When the Macintosh was introduced, Apple was still selling and supporting earlier models (Apple ][, Apple ][e, Apple ][c, Apple ][gs and of course the Lisa). The ][gs used a GUI version of the ProDOS that the earlier Apple ][s used, and the Lisa extended that concept (and added other features). The Macintosh had yet another OS, partly based on the Lisa OS, but wasn't compatible with it, so to differentiate what OS ran on which Apple computer, they had to call it Mac OS, so as you can now see, it does come from the model name of Macintosh.

Quote:
Today Mac's and PC's (both personal computers) are the basically the same machines in hardware. There is no drastic difference between the two, except the operating system that comes pre-installed on them.

OS X, Windows, Linux and Unix can each run on either Mac's or PC's as long as any hardware drivers needed are compatible.

Apple is now saddled with teaching the world in order to protect it's intellectual property, I think just adding a special piece of hardware needed for OS X to run on Mac's would have been a much easier solution.

Apple not only thought of that, they did have something that made the Mac different than Windows computers, so no, you can't just install the Mac OS and drivers on a PC designed for Windows or Windows and drivers on a Mac. You have to use Bootcamp on the Mac or an illegal workaround on the PC, for example RebelEFI to fool the MacOS that it is being installed on a Mac. then you install the OS and drivers.

As mentioned previously, Apple won't come after you for circumventing this difference, but it will if you charge to do it for others, or charge for a program (RebelEFI) to allow your customer to do it.

Since Microsoft doesn't (at least yet) sell computers, they only want to sell the OS so they don't care what computer you install it on, but they do sell game consoles (X-Box in its various models) and the Zune, and they will come after you if you try to install the software that runs them on other brands. After they failed to gain ground on Apple's iPod and iTunes music store with the "Plays for sure" Windows media player eco-system, they made sure no other MP3 player could use the Zune OS or Zune Marketplace, shutting out even the MP3 manufacturers that they previously called their partners.
post #130 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by nervus View Post

Little problem here, Apple does not sell a stand alone version of their OS, never have. They have only ever sold upgrades.

I also have never understood where Psystar was coming from. If Microsoft can tie their OS to the xbox 360, Sony their OS to the PS3, Nintendo to the Wii and so on, why no OS X (or any other apple OS) to their own computers... after all today all gaming systems out really are just very limited computers

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Wrong. Apple doesn't offer any such "upgrade" disc that only upgrades prior versions. I have done the "Up to Date" program with both Mac OS X and iLife. My iLife '09 disc is a "Drop in CPU" disc and it is no different than the retail version. A prior version of iLife is not required for installation. My Snow Leopard disc is also the $9.95 "Not for Resale" upgrade copy and it is no different than the retail version. It will install Snow Leopard on a reformatted hard drive that does not require a previous version of OS X to be updated.

No version of the Mac OS has ever been an "upgrade" in which it required a previous version to be installed or verified. You can buy a copy of Mac OS X and install it on a blank hard drive.

However, in the Windows world, if you buy one of their "upgrade" versions, it requires a previous version to be installed on the hard drive, or scan a previous version CD, in order for the installation to continue. That is what an upgrade version is, it verifies ownership of a previous version. The full price "retail" version of Windows does not require verification of a previous version and can be installed on a blank hard drive.

I'm so sick of debating this with people. Generally speaking, Apple doesn't sell "upgrade" discs. Even if they did, Psystar claimed to be buying OS X at retail. In other words, they bought something that could be installed on a blank drive, if that's what they wanted.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #131 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm so sick of debating this with people. Generally speaking, Apple doesn't sell "upgrade" discs. Even if they did, Psystar claimed to be buying OS X at retail. In other words, they bought something that could be installed on a blank drive, if that's what they wanted.

Apple does sell only full OS discs, but require you to put it only on Apple branded computers which were only sold with Mac OS already installed, so by default the computer had some version, either a previous one or the current one, on it. The fact that you can put it on an originally installed but wiped hard drive or a new hard drive (whether a replacement or additional) doesn't change this requirement. The install doesn't check if you have Mac OS installed, it checks if you are installing it on a Macintosh computer, and that is what satisfies the End User Licence Agreeement. Since the Mac already had a version of Mac OS on it, it is either an upgrade of a previous version, or a replacement for a corrupted or otherwise lost OS (or to allow dual booting of different versions), and in no way can it be the first time a Mac OS was installed.

Psystar not only did not install the OSX on Apple branded computers, breaking the EULA, they installed more copies of OSX than they purchased from Apple so they also pirated the software, even though they falsely claimed to have purchased a copy for each computer and passed on those discs to the end user. Not to mention that they hacked the copies they installed, thereby breaking copyright.
post #132 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm so sick of debating this with people. Generally speaking, Apple doesn't sell "upgrade" discs. Even if they did, Psystar claimed to be buying OS X at retail. In other words, they bought something that could be installed on a blank drive, if that's what they wanted.

It's irrelevant whether it's possible to install on a blank drive. What matters is that when it's purchased from Apple you agree to the condition that you use it only to upgrade an Apple product.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit